Sovietwarplanes

Did the VVS ever give names, official or unofficial, to it's aircraft in WWII? For example, the US had the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Corsair, etc. as official names. And some unofficial names popped up from time to time, such as "Jug" for the P-47.

Anyway, I've been wondering if the Yaks, Lavochkins, etc., had names, like the IL2 did. (Was its name official?)

No, VVS didn't give names to their aircraft in WWII.
Officially aircraft type was designated after the design bureau (first two letters of chief designer's last name) and it was given a number:  odd for fighters, even for bombers.  Correct VVS designations are, for example, La-7 or Il-2.

Aircraft names like "Lavochkin La-7" or "Ilyushin Il-2" are not correct.  Designer?s full name was not used as part of VVS aircraft designation.

Shturmovik is not a name of any particular plane type.  It is a general name for attack planes.  Same as "Stuka" in German.  Shturmovik is now associated with Il-2, but it was actually used for all ground attack planes from R-5Sh to Su-25.

The official VVS naming system was very simple; after 1940 (mid-December or so) they normally used the initials of the designer(s), followed by a number relating to the model that OKB had first built.  As an example, MiG-1 - this was the first of the series of aircraft designed by Artem Mikoyan and Mikhail Guerevich (the next being the much more famous MiG-3).  Notice the number skips "2" - Soviet practice was to reserve odd numbers for fighters - LaGG-3, Yak-9, La-7, etc., and even numbers for everything else - U-2 (Po-2 after Nikolay Polikarpov died), Li-2, Il-4, etc.  That's pretty much it.  There don't seem to have been any kind of official nicknames, although of course they gained unofficial nicknames over time such as the famous "Shturmovik", which name initially just referred to all ground attack aeroplanes, but came to be associated with the Il-2.  Generally, however, the aircraft were referred to by their service designation; for example, the Il-2 was simply the "eel-dvah", the Russian pronunciation for "Il-2".  I suspect Konstantin (KL) can shed more light on this subject, but this is what I know just from the top of my head.

Regards,

Jason

P.S.  Whilst I was writing this, looks like KL beat me to it.

Thanks! That is good information. Now that you mention it, I had noticed fighters were odd numbers... cool.

Why weren't the I-15 and I-16 called the Po-15 and Po-16? (Or Po-17! :))

Different naming system in 1930es!  Planes were grouped by their task into fighters, bombers etc. In each group they started with 1 and then each new type would get a consecutive number.  The sistem was similar to USAAF's system (P for fighters, B for bombers).  In the Soviet's 1930es system:

I - fighters
R - recognisance planes
TB - heavy bombers
DB - long range bombers

For example, I-16 is correct.
Polikarpov I-16 is not correct.  Designer's last name was not used.
Polikarpov I-16 Type 5 is not correct.  Type 5 was factory aircraft designation.
Polikarpov I-16 Rata is not correct.  Rata was name used by Germans, Italians and Spanish nationalsts.

They were put into production before the system of designations was changed. Despite the fact that the I-16 continued in production past that date, the designation was retained for consistency, I suppose. The "I" (for istrebitel = destroyer) designation continued after 1940 for use on fighter prototypes - there are many, many examples including the MiG-15, whose prototype designation was I-310. Another thing to be aware of is that the design bureaus (OKBs) didn't actually build their own aircraft - under the Soviet system, construction was assigned to specific manufacturing plants (zavoda) by the Ministry of Aviation as a central planning function.

John

Thanks to both of you for that information! I'd seen several instances of the "I" designation used in conjunction with prototypes as I'd read about different aircraft, and wondered what that was about.

Didn't know that about production & factories either, though that makes sense under that system now that you mention it.

Another thing to be aware of is that up to 1943 there were no special designations for subtypes.  There were no letters after the number - nothing like P-39B, P-39C, P-39D etc.

All I-16s made from 1935 to 1941 were designated as I-16 only.  Engines changed, armament changed but this was not reflected in the official VVS designation. If necessary engine type was added after I-16 so it became for example I-16 M-62.  I-16s armed with two machine guns were called two-point I-16s, those armed with four MGs were called four-point I-16.

There is no official name for Yak-1 with lowered back.  In production it was known as Model 1943, but for VVS it was Yak-1 same as before.

Not exactly. In the system of the USSSR aviation industry except aircraft designations were given in design bureau has been used to record types. A striking example of such a system is such aircraft Frolov  7211 plane, had not received the name in the design bureau "I-***" and carried a clean factory designation 7211. Type 7, Plant 21, unit 1.

Prototypes and their designations are a separate case.  Most prototypes were ordered, funded and owned by the Ministry of Aviation, not by the Air Force.  Because of this, prototypes were named by the design bureaus, not by the Air Force.  Different bureaus had different naming practices.
The fact that prototypes were owned by the ministry was usually reflected in colours and markings:  prototypes were painted like racing planes with all kinds of trims or as civilian planes (plain gray).  Red stars (Air Force markings) were usually absent on prototypes.


This is a good illustration for the meaning of the "Type":  it was an internal, factory designation for aircraft type/subtype.  "Type" designations haven't been used by the Air Force. Some of the "Types" produced by Zavod 21 (Gorkiy/Nizhni Novgorod) include:

Type 5 = I-16 M-25 and 2xShKAS
Type 6 = I-5 two-seater
Type 7 = Frolov 7211 prototype
...
Type 10 = I-16 M-25B and 4xShKAS
...
Type 31 = LaGG-3
...
Type 39 = La-5FN

Conclusion:  Type is a factory designation, I-16 or LaGG-3 are Air Force (VVS) designations...

KL, did this present problems from a logistics standpoint? For instance, if a part was ordered, and it was different for certain Types, how was that designated for spare parts, etc.?

Also, I understand what you're saying regarding the Type designations. Does that extend to the letter designations added on? For example, I have models for a La-5 and an La-5FN. Would the "FN" designation have been used, or was that a factory designation?

Very interesting information- thank you all for answering my questions!

From 1943  VVS did start to use letters for subtypes: for example Yak-9D.  Letter D is actually abreviations for dalnii (long range).

In the case of the La-5, La-5F, and La-5FN, the letters are engine designators. The La-5F had the ASh-82F (also known as M-82F), which was an improved version of the carbureted ASh-82 with better cooling and lubrication. The La-5FN had the ASh-FN engine which used direct fuel injection instead of the carburetor.

Usually the La-5F and La-5FN had distinctive Cyrillic logos on the cowling (and sometimes also on the fin, certainly in the case of the La-7, which had the FN engine):
La-5F - Ф for ASh-82F (АШ-82Ф in Cyrillic), applied as the letter alone
La-5FN - ФН for ASh-82FN (АШ-82ФН in Cyrillic), applied inside a diamond-shaped border

John

True, noticed. But La-5F were known early with high back for the canopy, and the recent low.
Designation in both the Red Army Air Force planes went as La-5F. A factory- types: typ37, typ 39...

(http://storage7.static.itmages.ru/i/13/0315/s_1363330287_8617307_439051d197.jpeg) (http://itmages.ru/image/view/938964/439051d1)

typ37 - early La-5F, typ 39 late La-5F, typ 41 La-5FN

Thanks for the corection and additional information Musa!  :)
Is this "Spravochnik" available for download anywhere?
Cheers,
KL

http://rusfolder.com/35494621

Thanks! Interesting and useful..  :)
Page 4 says:

type 37 = La-5F
type 39 = La-5FN
type 41 = La-5FN with metal wing longeron
type 43 = La-5 UTI


PS - No pictures...  :(

Yes. Sure. I misspelled wrote. This is a guide to the interchangeability of parts and components.

Very interesting, and please continue down this line.  However, returning to the original question of names (as opposed to designations), was the Pe2 not known as the Peshka or Pawn?  Excuse any transliteration mistake!  Was there not an Ishak (donkey)?  And perhaps the Li2 was the Douglas, which must at least approximate to a personal name?

You are talking about colloquial, affectionate names. Something like diminutives in colloquial, spoken, English.  Those colloquial names for planes did exist, but they were not official.

Both ?Peshka? and ?Ishak? are derived from official designations:
Pe-2 is pronounced as ?Peh-dva?.  Peshka is directly derived from ?Peh?.  
I-16 is pronounced as ?I-shesnadset?.  Ishak is a directly derived from ?I-She?.  Donkey was also a convinient pun.

Peshka and Ishak are colloquial names, nothing like official names such as Thunderbolt or Hurricane.  You cannot use colloquial names as substitutes for official names which didn?t exist.  Something like this is funny (and historically wrong):

(http://images.angusrobertson.com.au/images/ar/97818612/9781861265883/0/0/plain/petlyakov-pe-2-peshka.jpg)

Think of books with following titles:
Republic P-47D Juggy
Hawker Hurry
and compare with usual titles:
(http://www.paper-avia.com/gr/bookz/335.jpg)
(http://www.paper-avia.com/gr/bookz/451.jpg)
HTH,
KL

The original poster did ask for unofficial names as well as official ones. 

Let's see:

La-5/7 - "La" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Lavka"
Il-2 - "Eel" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Eelyusha"
Pe-2 - "Pe" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Peshka"
Su-2 - "Soo" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Sooshka"
Tu-2 - "Too" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Tooshka"
An-2 - "An" for short.  Unofficial nickname "Anushka"

Can you see a pattern?? Seriously, those are hard to call unoficial nicknames; more like rimes!
Do you think "Petlyakov Pe-2 Peshka" is OK as a book title?  Can you explain why? 

Yes, there's a pattern, much as there is in boys' and girls' nicknames in English, where often an abbreviated form is used with "y" or "ie" on the end.  William can become Willy or Billy.  Julia can become Julie - although Julian becomes Jules.

Is it a suitable title?  Yes, if the aircraft was commonly known as that.  My understanding is that it has the additional meaning of a Pawn in a game of chess.

The problem with these names is that they are manufacturer-specific rather than type-specific.  What was the equivalent name for the Pe-8?

(http://images.angusrobertson.com.au/images/ar/97818612/9781861265883/0/0/plain/petlyakov-pe-2-peshka.jpg)


I think that it is not an appropriate title.
First, it's mixing apples and oranges: mixing official name with an unofficial nickname.
Second, it is a forceful attempt to fit Soviet designation into western standards:

Junkers Ju-88 was an official name.  LW did use producer's name in official designation (for what I know)
Petlyakov Pe-2 is "Germanized" designation.  VVS did not use designer's/producer's name in official designations

B-25 Mitchell was an official name.  USAAF did have official names for their aircraft.
Pe-2 Peshka is "Americanized" name.  Lacking official name is substituted with unofficial, colloquial nickname.

That's interesting, KL. Makes sense, actually. When I was in the US Army, the HMMWV was generally called the "Hummer", even though it was not an official title. (Although they did later sell civilian versions of that vehicle as "Hummer"!) I noticed in Red Star Airacobra the author often referred to the P-39 as a "Kobrushka".

let's compare titles of  Pe-2 books published on the West with titles of Pe-2 books that were published in Russia.  West first:

(http://www.largescaleplanes.com/reference/images/374/374-1.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51fuKmCxN2L._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Hoo4fLjKL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2Bj0BoEgaL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg)

Russian books:
Official manual:  "Airplane Pe-2, airframe description"
(http://remont-automob.ucoz.ru/_nw/4/38188996.jpg)

Dive bomber Pe-2
(http://modelfan.ru/uploads/posts/2012-10/1349627063_pikiruyuschiy-bombardirovschik-pe-2-v.-kotelnikov-o.-leyko.jpg)

Dive bomber Pe-2
(http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5803/2576tah5.jpg)

Dive bomber Pe-2
(http://modelfan.ru/uploads/posts/2010-03/1268759522_armada-13-pe-2-1.jpg)

I fought on Pe-2
(http://cdn4.imhonet.ru/element/180x270/40/89/408991364b298d99a713bacf8dc2e2a5.jpg)

Dive bomber Pe-2
"Pawn" that became a queen
(http://img1.labirint.ru/books/165207/big.jpg)

In Russian titles name Petlyakov never appears!  In western titles it is always Petlyakov Pe-2.  Maybe it is time to change from Westrnized Petlyakov Pe-2 to the original Pe-2?

 

It is normal in the West to include the name of an aircraft's manufacturer (or more rarely designer).  North American B-25, to use your own example.  Hawker Hurricane.  In some examples this is not necessary, if the aircraft is well-enough known.  You don't have to say Supermarine Spitfire, though many titles do so.  Nowadays it does help to distinguish between the Hawker Typhoon and the Eurofighter Typhoon.  The system in the USSR separated the design from the manufacture in a way that was not common in the West, so parallels can be difficult.  However, the abbreviated system used (Pe) cannot be as meaningful to readers in the West as it may be to those in the East - although new generations are coming along everywhere.  In the West, no Soviet WW2 type has anywhere near the recognition of the Spitfire.  It is not surprising that Western publishers feel the need to provide additional information.  They are only following what is their cultural norm.

Similar arguments could be made when dealing with US or Japanese Navy aircraft.  Mitsubishi A6M where M tells you that it is Mitsubishi.  Vought F4U where the U tells us that it is Vought.  However, given one recent posting elsewhere asking why the US had an F4 Phantom when it already had an F4 Corsair, the value of adding redundant information should be clear.  Indeed, taking a wider view, I think any linguist will tell you that languages make considerable use of redundancy to ensure ready understanding.

Sure, why not? The trouble is, 90% of westerners (or more) wouldn't recognize "Pe-2" (or most other correct designations) without the "Petlyakov" as a bit of a hint. I kind of enjoy throwing in the name of the design bureau just as a tribute to the designer. As far as correct nomenclature goes, it's somewhat like discussions about "Il-2m", "Il-2m3", or "LaGG-3 series whatever", but in reverse. We know it's not correct, but those outdated "western" designations are easy-to-recognize shorthand for those who aren't full-time VVS enthusiasts. Same thing with NATO reporting names - I'm guessing that the "MiG-29 'Fulcrum'" isn't referred to as anything but "MiG-29" by Russian enthusiasts.

John

There may be another reason at the present to include more in the name - the Internet.  I've been recently commissioned by a British publisher to do an historical book on the Il-2 (as separate from my hopefully soon-to-be published modelling guide).  One of the guidelines they set down for me was to make a title that would show up in searches.  Although in deference to Soviet/Russian conventions I do not include the name "Ilyushin" before "Il-2", I do use the name "Shturmovik", as this will make it easier for someone to find this book, rather than just having "Il-2" in the title (that is if they can remember how to spell "Shturmovik", as opposed to "Sturmovik", "Stormovik", etc.).  I might even add "Soviet Attack Aircraft", or something like that to the title or subtitle, again, to make it easier for my book to come up in Internet searches.  I do realise that "shturmovik" can be a generic term, applicable equally to the Hs-129, the A-10, and the Su-25, but it is also a term commonly used to refer to the Il-2 in the West, and my book is aimed at a Western, English-speaking (or at least reading) audience.

Regards,

Jason

I am not against the use of designer's name, Petlyakov's Pe-2 is OK.  Nicknames did exist and were widely used, they could be used interchangeably with official designations.

I have a problem with artificially made designations - designations that are treated as official by authors (and model producers) but which have never existed in reality.

IMHO, this book's front cover represents light at the end of the tunnel  :):

(http://www.spruebrothers.com/sbmimages/ospcom096.jpg)

FYI there is evidence of the light before we entered the tunnel - Airfix Pe-2 model from 1960es  ;):

(http://www.vectis.co.uk/AuctionImages/146/5651_m.jpg)

Well, I don't know the answer to all this, but I do know the Pe-2 is a good looking aircraft, and I may have to build one! :D

Mmm - not me - too many engines. Although Yakovlev's Yak-2 is tempting...  ;)

@KL - Note that the authors of the Osprey Pe-2 book are Russian, or at least "eastern" in heritage, although I assume the editor at Osprey is "western", and he (or she) was apparently good with the title. I like the way Airfix handled the Pe-2 kit name, even though the one in the box art is Polish!  :D

John

BTW, you missed the pattern.  It's not about nickname ends.  All those nicknamess are only slightly modified official names.  Nothing more than Spit for Spitfire or Hurry for Hurricane.
Was Spitfire commonly known as Spit? If yes, "Supermarine Spitfire Spit" would be OK as a book title?
How about "Hawker Hurricane Hurry"?

I've got one from MPM in my stash but the Tu-2 will come first. :D

But Pe-2 is not a name: it is a designation.  It is quite normal to describe an aircraft by both its designation and its name.  To refer to the Petliakov Pe-2 Peshka is directly equivalent to referring to the North American P-51 Mustang.  P-51, F-6 or A-36 - they are all Mustangs (not Apaches or Invaders, to avoid that particular cul-de-sac!).  Pe-2 or Pe-3 - surely both Peshkas?  But was the Pe-8 also known as the Peshka?  If not, then why not, if that is the be-all and end-all of Soviet nicknames?   See also Il-2/10, La-5/9, and other types that not only carry distinct designations but are also clearly different aircraft, hence likely to acquire distinct nicknames.  It is noticeable that all the examples quoted are for the first examples from the new designer prefix system, and hence perhaps with an intrinsic bias to nicknames following this structure.
But what about Ishak for the I-16? This does not fit the standard pattern.
 
It would be grammatically wrong in English to refer to the "Hurricane Hurri" because both are names, one official and one a nickname.  The British did not use a designation system, although you can refer to aircraft by the specification number or the company type number, for example  Vickers F5/34 Venom or Vickers Type 279 Venom.  Hawker F.36/35 Hurricane would be correct, if unusual.

So the Russians had designations and nicknames, but no official names.  The British had official names and nicknames, but no designations.  The US had all three.

Just think about this: ALL airplanes that came out of Sukhoi design buro were, and still are called Sushka... That is Sushka 2, Sushka 7, Sushka 27...
All Petlyakov's planes were called Peshka, All Tupolevs were called Tushka...
P.S. Sushka translates as pretzel, Lavka as sitting bench, Peshka as pawn, Annushka as a girls name...
And another name of Il-2 was Gorbatyi

Interesting information - thank you!  For those who don't know, Gorbatiy means "hunchback" or "humpback" in Russian, and referred initially to the single-seaters, with their raised pilot's position.  Another nickname for the Il-2 was "Ilyusha", like "Sushka", "Peshka", etc.  Interestingly, although not originally a girl's name, supposedly some girls were subsequently named Ilyusha in honour of the Il-2.

Regards,

Jason

Hi Learstang,
that (nick-)name reminded me another known "owner" of that name - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin  :)

Another example is Belochka for Bell P-39 (http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1515.msg11229#msg11229 (http://sovietwarplanes.com/board/index.php?topic=1515.msg11229#msg11229))

Regards,
    66misos

That's right; I forget about Mr. Ulyanov.  So is Ilyusha a variant of Ilya (Mr. Ulyanov's proud papa)?

Regards,

Jason

Correct!

Only in UK and North America!  Where is the name in Junkers Ju-88?  Where is the name in Dewoitine D.520?  Isn?t Junkers Ju-88 enough to define/recognize a specific aircraft type?

Direct equivalent would be NKAP?s Zavod 22 Pe-2.  Not very attractive?

It?s not the end; it?s the new beginning!  Now you know better what those nicknames were, when and how they were used.  Now you know that those names are not equivalent to the official American or British aircraft names.  You just have to accept that those nicknames shouldn?t be used together with official Soviet designations.

Not likely ? both La-5/7 and La-9/11 were known as ?Lavka?.  Both Il-2 and Il-10 were ?Shturmoviks?.  Il-12 and Il-14 were known as ?Ilyusha?.  An-2 and An-26 are still called ?Annushka?.  Those nicknames are not type specific!!!  One reason more not to mix them with specific aircraft types!

As explained before, designation I-16 belongs to a different system (1930es).  Hence, nickname ?Ishak? is type specific.

You should use same logic for Soviet designations and nicknames.  It would be grammatically wrong and unusual to mix them together.

Correct.  But keep in mind that Russians didn?t combine designations and nicknames.

Ilyusha is a shortened male name Ilya. Ex-pilots said that they were thinking of Ilya Muromets more... Never ever heard of a girl with a name Ilya or Ilyusha...
Bellochka could be referred to the girls name Bella

So now we also have Gorbatyi and Belochka - the latter being clearly along the same lines as to Peshka etc. but the first is not.  Ishak may have predated the later convention but it did not leave service before GP War.  Chaika is another, I believe.  Did the SB have a popular name or was it just the fighters?

Of course there are no names for the Ju88 or D520 because none were allocated.  There may have been nicknames, though I don't recall reference to any.  For the Germans, there were however such examples as the FW200 Condor (official), Iron Annie (nickname) for the Ju52, FW190 Wurger (official if not often used) and a choice for the Me262, fighter or bomber.  The French did not use names for their fighters before 1940 (if we exclude the Hawk) but did name larger aircraft such as the Breguet Bizerte - my apologies for not looking up its designation - and did adopt names postwar.  The Italians used designations and names.  The Japanese initially did not have names but did adopt them for later types despite possessing multiple systems of designations.  Therefore it is not just a matter of the English speaking world - although as this forum is in English, perhaps it is not unreasonable to use English practice.  Combining formal designations and informal nicknames would normally be fairly rare anywhere in the world, but where no formal names exist then the combination is accepted.  The combination of formal name and nicknames is not accepted, for sylistic reasons this would jar on the eye/ear.

I have no argument with what is correct use in Russian, and have no desire to direct references in Russian, in Russia, by Russians.  Or indeed by Russians anywhere else.  That does not mean the correct use in Russia is necessarily wrong or improper in English.   As for whether Ju88 is sufficient or not, I have already expressed comment that some redundancy is considered valuable, particularly (I'd have thought) for the rather specialised field of book titles, which have to attract a wide range of readership.  It is not necessary to include manufacturer, designation and name, but it is generally useful.  Wartime practice would of course be different - to avoid being useful.

Clearly identical nicknames should not be used where there is potential for confusion, but by the same reasoning two differing types from the same manufacturer in service at the same time would reasonably be expected to have gained different nicknames.  The La5 and La7 are clearly the same design - I was asking about any different names given to them and the La9/11, though there is still considerable similarity in design and probably little overlap in service.  Shturmovik is a role not an individual name.

Not so with the Pe2 and Pe8.  It would be very interesting to know if the Pe8 was also known as the Peshka, but for a number of reasons I doubt it.  One is that the ending appears to be what is known as a "diminutive", approximately corresponding to "little".  Thus nicknames such as "Johnnie" are versions of "little John" - not to be taken literally or even consciously, but that's how they are referred to in grammar.  They would normally be used for children, who are indeed little but revert to the adult form when grown.  (Or not, as they desire.)  It implies a measure of affection.  The Pe8 is not the little Pe but a big one!  How affectionate pilots were towards it I cannot say, but aircrew do seem to be affectionate towards the types they fly, with the rare exceptions having to be fairly awful.  In Russian it appears that gender differential is another factor in these names, which English lacks.  The other reason is that "Peshka" does have the meaning of Pawn, and such a name would not normally be applied to a large aircraft. 

It is not normal in UK or US practice (admittedly with some exceptions for the US Navy) to credit the factory where the aircraft is built.  Otherwise we would have the Gloster Typhoon, and four different brands of Halifax.  The full name of the aircraft includes the name of the registered company which usually is coincident with the design and build site but not always.   The closest equivalent of this is the name of the design bureau not its location, hence Petlyakov, Tupolev etc.  This does seem to have been widely accepted outside and inside Russia.

Only few WWII Soviet aircraft had type specific nicknames:

(http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fww2/i16-17-i.jpg)
I-16 was known as ?Ishak? (donkey).  As explained before, "Ishak" was derived from the official designation which was pronounced as "i-shesnadset". This nickname was popular and fitting because the plane was temperamental  (hard to master).


(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/i153/i153-10.jpg)
I-153 was known as ?Chaika? (seagull).  This nickname referred to shoulder mounted upper wing  shape.


(http://lukoy56.ucoz.ru/mbr2-6.jpg)
MBR-2 flying boat was known as ?Ambarchik? (little barn).  This nickname was directly derived from the official name which was pronounced as ?em-be-er? and sounded similar to ?ambar? (barn in Russian).


(http://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2012-08/1346188167_li-2.jpg)
Douglas DC-3, license built PS-84, Li-2 and Land-Lease C-47 were all known as ?Duglas? (pronounced as ?Dooglas?) after its US producer.


(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/cww2/yak6/yak6-6.jpg)
Yak-6 transport was known as ?Duglasenok? (little Duglas). This according to 1970es Modelist-Konstruktor magazine.


(http://tverigrad.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/y-2.jpeg)
U-2 trainer (from 1944 Po-2) in its various forms was widely known as ?Kukuruznik? (corn picker/shucker).

And that?s about it: 6 aircraft types total?
HTH,
KL

Wow, Graham you are stubborn?  :-X


Didn?t I clearly demonstrate that ?Petlyakov Pe-2? doesn?t exist inside Russia?  ???

As I have explained before, authors may use nicknames, design bureau names and official names, but in appropriate way.  The problem is in artificially made designations ? if author throughout his book refers to I-16 as ?Polikarpov I-16 Ishak? only, he shows that he is not familiar with the plane.
Cheers,
KL

SB-2 (incorrect name b.t.w.) and Ar-2 were known as Shchuka (Pike) for the form of their engine cowling.
For Peshka - yes, Pe-8 was also referred by crews as Peshka. Because they liked it. Regardless of the meaning of the word itself. For example, Tu-204 is consciderably larger then Tu-2 and smaller then Tu-95, but all three are called Tushka. The meaning of the word is @Corpse of the small animal@. The naming came mostly from the similarity of pronounciation of word to the designation.

It must have been rather hurtful to Mr Tupolev to hear his designs, particularly (and ironically) the mighty "Bear", referred to as corpses of small animals!  :(

John

An important difference between the official US/British aircraft names and unofficial Soviet names mentioned here:

Spitfire, Mustang, Flying Fortress etc were not used only by the respective Air Forces - those names were widely used by propaganda and they were familliar to the civilians.  Those planes were known under the same names to the allies and to the enemy.
Most Soviet nicknames were used only within the VVS and only colloquially.  If you are looking for aircraft names that were widely known as say Spitfire or Mustang, IMHO only three Soviet aircraft nicknames would fit:

- Shturmovik
- Yak
- Kukuruznik

Those 3 names were used outside of the VVS by ordinary people.  Those 3 names also had (limited...) international exposure since they had been used by East Europian allies at the end of WWII and in postwar years.

Again, none of the three popular names was type specific... i.e. useless to be a part of the western style aircraft designation

Yes, but that was not my point, and I'm sorry I wasn't clearer there.  You had suggested that use of "Zavod...." would be more appropriate.  I was pointing out that internationally the name of the design team was consistently used rather than the name of the manufacturing factory, for any type.  Or are you suggesting that the names Petlyakov/Tupolev/Ilyushin were totally unknown to the VVS?

My intention wasn't to provide a more appropriate name for Pe-2!  My example was supposed to show that adding manufacturer's name would not make VVS aircraft names any more appealing.  It was also supposed to show that there were no parallels between Western manufacturers and Soviet manufacturers.  There were simply no companies in Soviet Union.  There was nothing similar to North American Aviation in Soviet Union...  everybody knows that for over 70 years the system in Soviet Union was quite different than one in the West.
 

FYI, independent design bureaus (OKBs) named after their founders appeared only after WWII.
What was the name of the design team which designed Pe-2?
Petlyakov was imprisoned at the time when Pe-2 prototype was designed ? he and his team were within the infamous TsKB-29, an NKVD managed design bureau.  Petlyakov wasn?t allowed to use his name ? he approved drawings with a number stamp.  Petlyakov was freed in summer 1940 and became head of the design bureau at the Zavod 124 in Kazan (Tatarstan).  The bureau was tasked with Pe-2 development. After Petlyakov?s death in plane crush in January 1942, this bureau was headed by Izakson, Putilov and from 1943 by Myasishchev.   


What kind of a question is this?  What are those supposed suggestions?
Petlyakov/Tupolev/Ilyushin + Yakovlev/Lavochkin were known to VVS in the same way as Reginald Mitchell and Sydney Camm were known to RAF.

Pe, Yak, Tu, Il are ALL names of the design teams. Saying Petlyakov Pe-2 is exactly the same as saying Petlyakov Petlyakov-2. I'm with KL on this matter. It is correct to name airplane by either full name or by shortened one, but not by both.

I have a pretty big collection of both Russian and English-language aviation books, as well as various aircraft manuals in the original Russian. I must say, I am also with KL on this matter - I don't have a single example of a Russian language book where the name of the design bureau is added in front of the designation. They are all "Istrebitel' La-7", "Legendarnii Il-2", etc. The one book's title is "Sturmovik Su-25 <<Grach>>", which actually underlines what KL said: Sturmovik is used there to describe the role of the aircraft, it is not part of the designation, then the actual designation Su-25, and then the "Grach" which is specifically added in quotes as it is not an official name and simply a nickname among some of the operators.

Going through my copy of "Emblemi i Znaki Camoletob Rossiiskix VVS 1912-2012", which includes a short history of just about everything flown by the VVS, I see typically foreign types are described using the manufacturer as is common in English literature: "Spad VII", "Junkers JuG-1", "Avro 504K", "Douglas DC-3", etc. Soviet types only get the designation and never the name of the design bureau: "TB-1 (ANT-4)", "TB-3", "I-16", "UT-1", "Yak-3", etc. The design bureau is sometimes (but not even always) mentioned in the text, but as I said, never as part of the designation. The same goes for more modern types also: "MiG-23", "Mi-24", "Su-27" and never "Sukhoi Su-27".

As KL said, Western literature seems to always want to add the name of the design bureau, which is clearly incorrect for Soviet types. This is presumably done because authors and/or publishers somehow think it is a requirement. Gordon's books, for example, on Famous Soviet Aircraft, all are titled adding the name of the design bureau: "Mikoyan MiG-29", "Sukhoi Su-27", etc. This convention is just about never seen in Russian literature. I say "just about", because although I have never encountered it, someone will probably find the one exception that proves the rule.

In the case of flight manuals of Soviet types, there are usually no mentioned of the designer or design bureau. For example, the title of the LaGG-3 pilot's manual is simply: "ИНСТРУКЦИЯ ЛЁТЧИКУ ПО ЭКСПЛОАТАЦИИ И ТЕХНИКЕ ПИЛОТИРОВАНИЯ САМОЛЁТА ЛАГГ-3 С МОТОРОМ М-105П и М-105ПФ ", which translates more-or-less to Piloting instructions for the LaGG-3 aircraft with the M-105P and M-105PF engine. Similarly, for the Yak-9U: "Самолёт як-9у с двигателем вк-107А, Техническое описание", which means "Aircraft Yak-9U with VK-107A engine, technical description". Neither of these manuals mention the name of the design bureau, not even in the overall aircraft descriptions.

So, in my opinion KL is perfectly correct. I think if you were to write a book on a Soviet type, you can probably add a nickname (if it was in use by the operators) to the title, but then you have to put it in quotes to make it clear that it was in no way part of the official designation. Such nicknames are not in any way equivalent to "Mustang", "Hurricane" or "Spitfire". Never add the name of the design bureau in front of the designation - it just simply was never used like that. It also seems to be fine to add the role of the aircraft to the title, but then once again it should be clear it is not part of the formal designation: "La-7 fighter", "Il-2 ground attack aircraft" or "Istrebitel' La-7", "Sturmovik Il-2", etc...